🔗 Share this article

The state government released private information about the mother of a transgender teenager – information she claims potentially exposed her child – to a stranger.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure came as the government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private health records from guardians of transgender children who are considering a further court case to its controversial ban on hormone blockers.

Recent Official Order on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for trans individuals, just hours after the state’s supreme court determined the government’s first attempt was illegal.

Guardian Australia has spoken to four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a statement of reasons – a formal explanation of why the authorities made a decision to ban hormone treatments in the region. By law, the paper must be supplied under the legal statute.

Demanded Health Information

Each were required by the health authorities for particulars of their child’s medical history, including “your child’s name, their date of birth and any other evidence which confirms your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The details were requested before the statement of reasons would be provided.

The email, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also instructed them to verify if your teen is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can confirm the data provided with Children’s Health Queensland,” reads the communication, which was sent recently.

Mothers Describe Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

All four mothers described the request as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was reluctant to share the details because the state government had mistakenly forwarded her information to a another individual.

“It seems like having to ‘out’ your child to obtain a response; like, it’s terrifying,” she said.

Case of Louise*

The parent, who must remain anonymous because it would also identify or expose her teen, was among those who asked for a explanation on multiple occasions.

In May, the department sent a response meant for her to someone else, revealing her identity and address – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a stranger. She said a department official later apologised by telephone; the media has seen an email from the department admitting the mistake.

She said she felt “ill and vulnerable” as a consequence of the error.

“My daughter is very reserved. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any public space. She doesn’t like people to be aware that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I honor that to my core as much as possible. The sole occasion I ever, ever share is out of necessity for obtaining entry to supports and only to individuals I consider trustworthy and I know well.”

Louise was especially worried about the suggestion it would be “confirmed” by the hospital.

She said the demand was “threatening” and “feels threatening”.

Additional Mother Expresses Worries

Another mother said she was not comfortable disclosing the health background of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

“It’s not my information, it’s a seven-year-old’s details,” she said.

“To imagine that that information could accidentally be disclosed someday, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

She wrote back saying the agency had requested an “extraordinary amount of information”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to another entity that requested it, particularly in the climate of the current political climate,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You would not reveal, for example, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be very reluctant and careful to provide such details to a group of officials, essentially.”

Advocacy Group Weighing Further Action

The advocacy organization, which assisted the parent in her case, was considering a second lawsuit, it said last week.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their families and it was crucial to promptly enable the supply of explanations so that minors and their guardians can comprehend the reasoning behind this decision, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.

Government Stance on Prohibition

The government has repeatedly said the prohibition would remain in place until a review into gender-affirming care had been finished.